logistical hardball in afghanistan

Via David Axe:

Under pressure from Russia, the Kyrgyz government is taking steps to kick the U.S. military out of Manas air base, a critical supply junction for the Afghanistan war, while militants continue to destroy trucks, pictured, carrying supplies through Pakistan to U.S. and NATO forces. Meanwhile NATO members are considering negotiating with favorite American bogeyman Iran for access to Iranian routes into Afghanistan.

Abu Muqawama weighs in:

Fun fact: A brigade deployed to Afghanistan is twice as expensive to maintain as a brigade in Iraq. Resupply, as you might have guessed, is the primary issue.

...

I can hear Vladimir Putin howling with laughter all the way here in Southeast DC. The Russians are managing to screw us in Afghanistan as badly as we screwed them 20 years ago.

Both bloggers raise the issue of aerial resupply:

Axe kicks off the debate...

Logistics are emerging as the major weakness of the Afghanistan war effort, making a strong argument for greater U.S. investment in logistical forces, especially strategic airlift. More C-17s, anyone?

...and Abu Muqawama carries the football. Good discussion follows in the comments:

Great note on the Afghan resupply problem. Would love to see someone pose the question about why the U.S. cannot build an "air bridge" into Afghanistan? Is it a matter of long-haul planes (C-17s)? Short-haul planes (C-130s)? Airstrip capacity? Logistical personnel / contractor capacity? Cost, which is basically a proxy for the other things? It seems to me that logistical support for power projection is one of the most important missions right now for the Air Force. And, from the Air Force's perspective, it should tickle them pink because it is a mission which can justify a ton of force structure. But they don't seem to have the muscle to do it. Why not?

My question: will this turn into a 21st century Berlin airlift, or will we start to approach the region with some sanity?